Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WOWSOME

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret ^account 17:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WOWSOME

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software. A few brief newspaper blurbs, probably based on press releases, which introduce the old version of the software under a previous name - nothing at all about the current name of the software. I looked for sources per WP:BEFORE but "wowsome" is a popular term, and the only Ghits I could find that referred to this product were press releases and adverts. bonadea contributions talk 13:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional point: the product has no significant coverage under its previous name (RevEye) either. The article has been edited quite a bit since the opening of this AfD, but no additional third-party sources have been added. --bonadea contributions talk 09:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RevEye to WOWSOME

I agree with the notable issues and please understood that our product name that there has no relevancy with other brands and it's complete capitals "WOWSOME" even the page name is in "WOWSOME", soon it's going for register also. The other thing is, I agree with there has no reference information at news, media, or at any where else other than at Google play page about the name change of RevEye to WOWSOME.--Sinaamasa (talk) 10:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following are the references (other than news papers) to say that WOWSOME (Previously RevEye) is a notable app:

http://www.augmentedrealitytrends.com/ar-app/rev-eye-motion-print.html- Article published in April 2014
http://www.desicreative.com/loreal-augmented-reality-wowsome/ - Article published in Oct 2014--Sinaamasa (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no real sources exist to prove this exists. Bearian (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To its credit, the article seems to have found the best available sources. Unfortunately, that's still not enough to show notability. Some of the sources may not even qualify as WP:RS. One source [1] asks developers to submit their apps for review; one must pay to get a review that's more than 20 words long. Another source [2] is "an Indian Advertising Creative blog and magazine"; this hardly sounds like a publication known for its fact checking. It may just be a matter of WP:TOOSOON, but for now the app isn't notable. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re Message

Thanks for your suggestionsLarry/Traveling_Man and let me know the notable things for an App (for information). Does it notability can be guided by the measurement of downloads or efficiency of app or user engagement!--Sinaamasa (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you, then the short answer is no. Neither the number of downloads, nor efficiency, nor quality of the app, determine notability. For a quick summary of what's required of Wikipedia articles, see WP:42. That page has links to some pages worth reading. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.